Establishing a global regulatory floor for children's decisions about participation in clinical research.

BACKGROUND: Enrolling children in clinical trials typically requires parental or guardian permission and, when appropriate, child assent. Aligning requirements across jurisdictions would facilitate multisite pediatric trials. Guidance from the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) is the best candidate for a global standard but would benefit from additional specification. METHODS: Ethical analysis of ICH guidance for permission and assent for pediatric trials, with recommendations for clarification. RESULTS: ICH guidance regarding permission and assent would be enhanced by additional detail in the following areas: (1) what information should be provided to parents, guardians, and children considering a trial, and how that information should be provided; (2) the definition of "assent," the criteria for when assent should be required, and the need to include children in discussions even when assent is not mandated; (3) criteria for requiring children's signatures indicating agreement; (4) greater specificity regarding children's right to decline or withdraw; and (5) clarification of when children's wish to decline or withdraw from participation may be overridden and of what the overriding process should entail. CONCLUSION: ICH guidance provides a global standard for decision making regarding children's participation in trials. Several clarifications would facilitate the conduct of multinational pediatric research. IMPACT: Enrolling children in clinical trials requires the permission of a parent/guardian ± the assent of the minor. Differing global regulatory requirements for enrolling children complicate the conduct of multicenter and multinational trials. The authors identify points of ambiguity and/or contradiction in the International Council for Harmonization guidelines and offer recommendations for a common ethical platform for conducting global pediatric research.

Risk factors associated with venous thromboembolism in laparoscopic surgery in non-obese patients with benign disease.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have focused on intraoperative positioning as a risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Positioning that places the legs in a dependent position may be a risk factor. We theorized that the reverse-Trendelenburg position specifically would increase the risk of postoperative VTE. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: 374,017 subjects undergoing laparoscopic surgery in the 2015-2018 NSQIP database were included. Diagnosis of cancer and BMI ≥ 30 were excluded. Subjects were grouped based on positioning: reverse-Trendelenburg (RT), supine (S), and Trendelenburg (T). RESULTS: The RT, S, and T groups consisted of 117,887, 66,511, and 189,619 subjects, respectively. Overall median BMI was 25.7, and 82.8% of subjects were non-smokers. VTE within 30 days postoperative was seen in 0.25% RT, 0.23% S, and 0.4% T (p < 0.0001); 30-day mortality was 0.34% RT, 0.25% S, and 0.19% T (p < 0.0001). After adjusting for potential confounders and other risk factors, RT position was associated with a lower risk of VTE compared to S (OR 1.49 with 95% CI 1.16, 1.93) and T (OR 1.34 with 95% CI 1.15, 1.56) positions. VTE risk was significantly different across the three groups (p = 0.0001). Inpatient procedures had a higher VTE risk vs outpatient (OR 2.49 with 95% CI 2.10, 2.95). Increasing operative time was associated with higher VTE risk [4th (> 106 min) vs 1st (≤ 40 min) quartiles (OR 3.54 with 95% CI 2.79, 4.48)]. CONCLUSIONS: Among other risk factors, inpatient procedures and longer operative times are associated with higher VTE risk in laparoscopic surgery performed for benign disease in non-obese patients. The risk was significantly different across the three positioning groups with lowest risk in the RT group and highest risk in the S group.

Developing rights-based standards for children having tests, treatments, examinations and interventions: using a collaborative, multi-phased, multi-method and multi-stakeholder approach to build consensus.

Children continue to experience harm when undergoing clinical procedures despite increased evidence of the need to improve the provision of child-centred care. The international ISupport collaboration aimed to develop standards to outline and explain good procedural practice and the rights of children within the context of a clinical procedure. The rights-based standards for children undergoing tests, treatments, investigations, examinations and interventions were developed using an iterative, multi-phased, multi-method and multi-stakeholder consensus building approach. This consensus approach used a range of online and face to face methods across three phases to ensure ongoing engagement with multiple stakeholders. The views and perspectives of 203 children and young people, 78 parents and 418 multi-disciplinary professionals gathered over a two year period (2020-2022) informed the development of international rights-based standards for the care of children having tests, treatments, examinations and interventions. The standards are the first to reach international multi-stakeholder consensus on definitions of supportive and restraining holds.    Conclusion: This is the first study of its kind which outlines international rights-based procedural care standards from multi-stakeholder perspectives. The standards offer health professionals and educators clear evidence-based tools to support discussions and practice changes to challenge prevailing assumptions about holding or restraining children and instead encourage a focus on the interests and rights of the child. What is Known: • Children continue to experience short and long-term harm when undergoing clinical procedures despite increased evidence of the need to improve the provision of child-centred care. • Professionals report uncertainty and tensions in applying evidence-based practice to children's procedural care. What is New: • This is the first study of its kind which has developed international rights-based procedural care standards from multi-stakeholder perspectives. • The standards are the first to reach international multi-stakeholder consensus on definitions of supportive and restraining holds.

Health professionals' initial experiences and perceptions of the acceptability of a whole-hospital, pro-active electronic paediatric early warning system (the DETECT study): a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Paediatric early warning systems (PEWS) alert health professionals to signs of a child's deterioration with the intention of triggering an urgent review and escalating care. They can reduce unplanned critical care transfer, cardiac arrest, and death. Electronic systems may be superior to paper-based systems. The objective of the study was to critically explore the initial experiences and perceptions of health professionals about the acceptability of DETECT e-PEWS, and what factors influence its acceptability. METHODS: A descriptive qualitative study (part of The DETECT study) was undertaken February 2020-2021. Single, semi-structured telephone interviews were used. The setting was a tertiary children's hospital, UK. The participants were health professionals working in study setting and using DETECT e-PEWS. Sampling was undertaken using a mix of convenience and snowballing techniques. Participants represented two user-groups: 'documenting vital signs' (D-VS) and 'responding to vital signs' (R-VS). Perceptions of clinical utility and acceptability of DETECT e-PEWS were derived from thematic analysis of transcripts. RESULTS: Fourteen HPs (12 nurses, 2 doctors) participated; seven in D-VS and seven in the R-VS group. Three main themes were identified: complying with DETECT e-PEWS, circumventing DETECT e-PEWS, and disregarding DETECT e-PEWS. Overall clinical utility and acceptability were deemed good for HPs in the D-VS group but there was diversity in perception in the R-VS group (nurses found it more acceptable than doctors). Compliance was better in the D-VS group where use of DETECT e-PEWS was mandated and used more consistently. Some health professionals circumvented DETECT e-PEWS and fell back into old habits. Doctors (R-VS) did not consistently engage with DETECT e-PEWS, which reduced the acceptability of the system, even in those who thought the system brought benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Speed and accuracy of real-time data, automation of triggering alerts and improved situational awareness were key factors that contributed to the acceptability of DETECT e-PEWS. Mandating use of both recording and responding aspects of DETECT e-PEWS is needed to ensure full implementation.

Development, implementation and evaluation of an evidence-based paediatric early warning system improvement programme: the PUMA mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Paediatric mortality rates in the United Kingdom are amongst the highest in Europe. Clinically missed deterioration is a contributory factor. Evidence to support any single intervention to address this problem is limited, but a cumulative body of research highlights the need for a systems approach. METHODS: An evidence-based, theoretically informed, paediatric early warning system improvement programme (PUMA Programme) was developed and implemented in two general hospitals (no onsite Paediatric Intensive Care Unit) and two tertiary hospitals (with onsite Paediatric Intensive Care Unit) in the United Kingdom. Designed to harness local expertise to implement contextually appropriate improvement initiatives, the PUMA Programme includes a propositional model of a paediatric early warning system, system assessment tools, guidance to support improvement initiatives and structured facilitation and support. Each hospital was evaluated using interrupted time series and qualitative case studies. The primary quantitative outcome was a composite metric (adverse events), representing the number of children monthly that experienced one of the following: mortality, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, unplanned admission to Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, or unplanned admission to Higher Dependency Unit. System changes were assessed qualitatively through observations of clinical practice and interviews with staff and parents. A qualitative evaluation of implementation processes was undertaken. RESULTS: All sites assessed their paediatric early warning systems and identified areas for improvement. All made contextually appropriate system changes, despite implementation challenges. There was a decline in the adverse event rate trend in three sites; in one site where system wide changes were organisationally supported, the decline was significant (ß = -0.09 (95% CI: - 0.15, - 0.05); p = < 0.001). Changes in trends coincided with implementation of site-specific changes. CONCLUSIONS: System level change to improve paediatric early warning systems can bring about positive impacts on clinical outcomes, but in paediatric practice, where the patient population is smaller and clinical outcomes event rates are low, alternative outcome measures are required to support research and quality improvement beyond large specialist centres, and methodological work on rare events is indicated. With investment in the development of alternative outcome measures and methodologies, programmes like PUMA could improve mortality and morbidity in paediatrics and other patient populations.

The power of language: how to bridge the gap between healthcare research and patients - a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: The value of patient involvement to the design, conduct, and outcomes of healthcare research is increasingly being recognized. Patient involvement also provides greater patient accessibility and contribution to research. However, the use of inaccessible and technical language when communicating with patients is a barrier to effective patient involvement. METHODS: We analyzed peer-reviewed and gray literature on how language is used in communication between healthcare researchers and patients. We used this analysis to generate a set of recommendations for healthcare researchers about using more inclusive and accessible language when involving patients in research. This scoping review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. RESULTS: Four major themes about the use of language were developed from the literature analysis and were used to develop the set of recommendations. These recommendations include guidance on using standardized terminology and plain language when involving patients in healthcare research. They also discuss the implementation of co-development practices, patient support initiatives, and researcher training, as well as ways to improve emotional awareness and the need for greater equality, diversity, and inclusion. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The use of inclusive, empathetic, and clear language can encourage patients to be involved in research and, once they are involved, make them feel like equal, empowered, and valued partners. Working toward developing processes and guidelines for the use of language that enables an equal partnership between researchers and patients is critical.

Patient and public involvement is when patients, carers, and the public are included as partners in all stages of healthcare research. Patient involvement has been shown to have a positive impact on people and on research itself, but researchers often use language that is complicated, confusing, or unsuitable for patients. This can lead to less meaningful patient involvement in research.Our work looked at two areas: (1) how using unsuitable language can be a barrier to effective and meaningful patient involvement; and (2) what can be done to help improve communication between healthcare researchers and patients.We started by finding out what has already been researched and published in these areas. We looked in medical journal databases for articles that were relevant to the topic. We also searched Google and the websites of relevant organizations. From looking at these sources, we found four common themes. These themes are: (1) lack of standardized terminology for patients involved in research; (2) consistent overuse of technical, scientific, and medical language; (3) positive outcomes of using language to show emotional understanding; and (4) language as a powerful tool for promoting diversity, equality, and inclusion of patients involved in research.Using these themes, we then developed seven recommendations to help improve how healthcare researchers and patients communicate with each other. These recommendations are: (1) using standardized terminology; (2) using plain language; (3) co-developing patient information; (4) providing patient training, mentoring, and support; (5) introducing researcher training; (6) having emotional awareness; and (7) improving equality, diversity, and inclusion.A graphical plain language summary can be found as Supplementary material for this article.

Protocol for Surgery or Cast of the EpicoNdyle in Children's Elbows (SCIENCE).

Aims: The management of fractures of the medial epicondyle is one of the greatest controversies in paediatric fracture care, with uncertainty concerning the need for surgery. The British Society of Children's Orthopaedic Surgery prioritized this as their most important research question in paediatric trauma. This is the protocol for a randomized controlled, multicentre, prospective superiority trial of operative fixation versus nonoperative treatment for displaced medial epicondyle fractures: the Surgery or Cast of the EpicoNdyle in Children's Elbows (SCIENCE) trial. Methods: Children aged seven to 15 years old inclusive, who have sustained a displaced fracture of the medial epicondyle, are eligible to take part. Baseline function using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) upper limb score, pain measured using the Wong Baker FACES pain scale, and quality of life (QoL) assessed with the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire for younger patients (EQ-5D-Y) will be collected. Each patient will be randomly allocated (1:1, stratified using a minimization algorithm by centre and initial elbow dislocation status (i.e. dislocated or not-dislocated at presentation to the emergency department)) to either a regimen of the operative fixation or non-surgical treatment. Outcomes: At six weeks, and three, six, and 12 months, data on function, pain, sports/music participation, QoL, immobilization, and analgesia will be collected. These will also be repeated annually until the child reaches the age of 16 years. Four weeks after injury, the main outcomes plus data on complications, resource use, and school absence will be collected. The primary outcome is the PROMIS upper limb score at 12 months post-randomization. All data will be obtained through electronic questionnaires completed by the participants and/or parents/guardians. The NHS number of participants will be stored to enable future data linkage to sources of routinely collected data (i.e. Hospital Episode Statistics).

Developments in the Design, Conduct, and Reporting of Child Health Trials.

To identify priority areas to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of pediatric clinical trials, the international expert network, Standards for Research (StaR) in Child Health, was assembled and published the first 6 Standards in Pediatrics in 2012. After a recent review summarizing the 247 publications by StaR Child Health authors that highlight research practices that add value and reduce research "waste," the current review assesses the progress in key child health trial methods areas: consent and recruitment, containing risk of bias, roles of data monitoring committees, appropriate sample size calculations, outcome selection and measurement, and age groups for pediatric trials. Although meaningful change has occurred within the child health research ecosystem, measurable progress is still disappointingly slow. In this context, we identify and review emerging trends that will advance the agenda of increased clinical usefulness of pediatric trials, including patient and public engagement, Bayesian statistical approaches, adaptive designs, and platform trials. We explore how implementation science approaches could be applied to effect measurable improvements in the design, conducted, and reporting of child health research.

Reporting involvement activities with children and young people in paediatric research: a framework analysis.

BACKGROUND: The active involvement of patients and the public in the design and delivery of health research has been increasingly encouraged, if not enforced. Knowledge of how this is realised in practice, especially where children and young people (CYP) are concerned, is limited, partly due to the low level of reporting of patient and public involvement (PPI) in general. The aim of this work was to assess how researchers funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) report the involvement of CYP in the design and conduct of child health research to better understand the opportunities offered to CYP, and the realities of involvement in practice. METHODS: A participation matrix, analysis framework and accompanying tools were adapted from existing frameworks, including a child-rights informed framework, the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public Checklist Short Form (GRIPP2SF), and NIHR reporting expectations. Child-focused research reports were identified from the NIHR Journals Library, including any interventional or observational study involving CYP aged 0-< 24 years. In two co-design workshops with healthcare professionals and CYP, we tested and refined the participation matrix, analysis framework and accompanying tools. RESULTS: Only thirty-two NIHR reports out of 169 (19%) were identified as relevant and included reporting of PPI with CYP. We identified significant variability in the way PPI with CYP was reported. Only 4/32 (12%) reports fully met NIHR (and GRIPP2SF) reporting criteria. Only 3/32 (9%) reports formally evaluated or self-reflected on PPI activities with CYP, whilst 15/32 (47%) provided minimal information about CYP involvement. The most common approach to involving CYP (23/32, 72%) was through the medium of existing groups or networks. CONCLUSION: Despite the NIHR's commitment to increase the quality, transparency, and consistency of reporting PPI, the reporting of involvement with CYP remains sub-optimal. Neglecting to report key details of involvement methods and impacts deprives the research community of knowledge to advance the field of delivering 'meaningful' PPI with CYP. Practical guidance on how researchers can report the processes and outputs of CYP involvement more rigorously may help child health researchers to involve them more meaningfully. This research offers practical tools informed by CYP to aid the reporting process.

BACKGROUND: Children and young people can (and should) be involved in the design of child-health research. How this works in practice is limited due to the low-level reporting of involvement activities. AIM: We wanted to understand how researchers funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) are reporting involvement activities with children and young people in child-health research. WHAT WE DID AND HOW WE DID IT: A team of healthcare researchers (working in child-health research), a parent, and children and young people adapted existing tools to assess how the involvement of children and young people is reported in child-health research. We looked at reports in an online library to see how researchers are meeting the reporting guidelines set by the NIHR. FINDINGS: Despite the reporting guidelines provided by the NIHR, only four out of thirty-two reports followed this. It is still unclear who is involved, why, and what outcomes and impact involvement has on the research process, on children and young people and/or on researchers. This is a missed opportunity to learn from previous experiences and to build on good practice. Further work is needed to understand why and how the NIHR, and other funders of health research collect such information, and what their plans are for sharing the findings with the wider research community.

Patient and public involvement in research: the need for budgeting PPI staff costs in funding applications.

BACKGROUND: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) groups are becoming more established as collaborators with academic researchers and institutions to ensure that research is important and relevant to end users, and to identify areas that might have ethical considerations, as well as to advise on solutions. The National Institute for Health and Care Research UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research embody best practice for PPI, including support and learning opportunities that build confidence and skills for members of the public to play an invaluable and mutually productive role in research. However, the pivotal role of research and professional services (management and administrative) staff within academic institutions for sustaining and making this involvement successful is often overlooked. MAIN BODY: It takes significant effort to develop and sustain effective PPI in research. The six UK Standards for Public Involvement highlight the need for consistent, inclusive, well-governed and mutually respectful working relationships to sustain effective PPI contributions in health research. Productivity across a team of lay and academic members requires organisation and experience of implementing these standards by a dedicated PPI team, yet advice on PPI finances is usually focused on costs for patient panel members, and budgets in funding applications rarely consider the wider PPI team behind this involvement. As an exemplar, we reflect on how the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research (AUKCAR) has developed a dedicated PPI Platform, with guidance for how PPI should be embedded throughout the research lifecycle, and detailed information to support the costing of PPI in funding applications. AUKCAR's work with established researchers, as well as Early Career Researchers and PhD students, is at the heart of a campaign to raise awareness of the importance of PPI in effective research planning. CONCLUSION: Focusing attention on the staff behind best practice involvement in health research may stimulate a much-needed discussion to ensure flourishing PPI capacity, with significant patient and public benefit. With adaptation, the PPI expertise within AUKCAR can be translated more widely.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is important for high-quality research. It makes research more relevant to patients, and makes the results more useful for the health service. To make patient involvement effective, we need skilled staff with experience of involving lay members in research, as well as engaging researchers in PPI activities. There is little guidance about staff time needed to recruit and support lay members and researchers properly. This means that we still do not understand the true cost of including patients and the public in research, and we often under cost this in funding applications. As an example, we reflect on how the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research (AUKCAR) has organised staff to support for its patient involvement. We give some thoughts on how to cost PPI staff time in funding applications. By focusing attention on the team behind the lay volunteers, we hope to encourage a much-needed discussion about the support involved, and deliver more patient benefits. The AUKCAR experience can be adapted to other research topics and contexts.

Characterising meaningful patient and public involvement in the pharmaceutical industry research setting: a retrospective quality assessment.

OBJECTIVES: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical research has a well-established infrastructure in the UK, and while there has been good progress within pharmaceutical-industry-sponsored research, further improvements are still needed. This review aims to share learnings from quality assessments of historical PPI projects within Pfizer UK to inform future projects and drive PPI progress in the pharmaceutical industry. DESIGN AND SETTING: Internal assessments of Pfizer UK PPI projects were conducted to identify all relevant projects across the medicines development continuum between 2017 and 2021. Five sample projects were developed into case studies. OUTCOME MEASURE: Retrospective quality assessments were performed using the Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) Patient Engagement Quality Guidance (PEQG) tool. Recommendations for improvement were developed. RESULTS: Retrospective case study analysis and quality framework assessment revealed benefits of PPI to both Pfizer UK and to external partners, as well as challenges and learnings to improve future practice. Recommendations for improvement based on these findings focused on processes and procedures for PPI, group dynamics and diversity for PPI activities, sharing of expertise, the importance of bidirectional and timely feedback, and the use of understandable language in materials. CONCLUSIONS: PPI in medicines development is impactful and beneficial but is still being optimised in the pharmaceutical industry. Using the PFMD PEQG tool to define gaps, share learnings and devise recommendations for improvement helps to ensure that PPI is genuine and empowering, rather than tokenistic. Ultimately, these recommendations should be acted on to further embed PPI as an integral part of medicines development and health research within the pharmaceutical industry. This article includes a plain language summary in the supplement.

The effectiveness and acceptability of multimedia information when recruiting children and young people to trials: the TRECA meta-analysis of SWATs.

Background: The information provided to potential trial participants plays a crucial role in their decision-making. Printed participant information sheets for trials have received recurrent criticism as being too long and technical, unappealing and hard to navigate. An alternative is to provide information through multimedia (text, animations, video, audio, diagrams and photos). However, there is limited evidence on the effects of multimedia participant information on research recruitment rates, particularly in children and young people. Objectives: The study objectives were as follows: 1. to develop template multimedia information resources through participatory design, for use when recruiting children and young people to trials 2. to evaluate the multimedia information resources in a series of Studies Within A Trial, to test their effects on recruitment and retention rates, and participant decision-making, by comparing the provision of multimedia information resources instead of printed participant information sheets, and comparing the provision of multimedia information resources in addition to printed participant information sheets. Design: Two-phase study: 1. multimedia information resources development including qualitative study; user testing study; readability metrics; enhanced patient and public involvement 2. multimedia information resources' evaluation comprising Studies Within A Trial undertaken within host trials recruiting children and young people. Setting: United Kingdom trials involving patients aged under 18. Participants: Development phase: n = 120 (children and young people, parents, clinicians, trial personnel). Evaluation phase: n = 1906 (children and young people being asked to take part in trials). Interventions: Multimedia information resources (comprising text, audio, 'talking heads' video, trial-specific and trial-generic animations). Printed participant information sheets. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: trial recruitment rate comparing multimedia information resource-only with printed participant information sheet-only provision. Secondary outcomes: trial recruitment rate comparing combined multimedia information resource and printed participant information sheet with printed participant information sheet-only provision; trial retention rate; quality of participant decision-making. Results for each trial were calculated and combined in a two-stage random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Phase 1 generated two multimedia information resource templates: (1) for children aged 6-11 years; (2) for children aged 12-18 years and parents. In the Phase 2 Studies Within A Trial the multimedia information resources improved trial recruitment, when compared to printed information alone [odds ratio (OR) = 1.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 2.28; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%]. When printed participant information sheet-only provision was compared to combined multimedia information resource and printed participant information sheet provision, there was no effect on trial recruitment (OR = 0.89; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.50; I2 = 0%). There were no differences between multimedia information resource and printed participant information sheet on trial retention or participant decision-making quality. In a study within a hypothetical trial setting, multimedia information resource-only provision produced higher ratings of 'information was easy to understand' (Z = 3.03; p = 0.003) and 'I had confidence in decision-making' (Z = 2.00; p = 0.044) than printed participant information sheet-only provision. Limitations: It was not possible to include data from three Studies Within A Trial in the meta-analysis due to limited sample size, and questionnaire return rates were low, which reduced the strength of the findings. Conclusions: Use of multimedia information increased the rate of recruitment to trials involving children and young people compared to standard patient information sheets. Future work: There should be further evaluation of the effects of multimedia information on recruitment to trials involving children and young people. It would be valuable to assess any impacts of multimedia information resources on communication between trial recruiters, children and young people, and parents. Study registration: This trial is registered as TRECA ISRCTN 73136092 and Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT Repository (SWAT 97). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 14/21/21) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 24. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Clinical trials are important to National Health Service care, but it can be difficult to recruit enough people. We do not know enough about how to improve recruitment, especially when trying to recruit children and young people. People are normally told about a trial through printed information, which is often long and complex. Multimedia information (text, audio, cartoons and video) might be a better way of telling people. It is important to test whether multimedia interventions can help. One way of doing this is to run a 'Study Within A Trial' where people receive information in different ways. We created two multimedia interventions, one for parents and young people being asked for consent, and a simpler one for younger children. Some content applied to all trials, and some about the specific trial people were being asked to consider. We designed these by working closely with children and young people, parents and healthcare staff. We tested the multimedia information in six trials (although only three gave us enough data). Children, young people and their parents saw either standard printed information or our multimedia information. We then collected data on their decision-making, trial recruitment and whether people stayed in the trial. Children and young people who saw multimedia information were more likely to be recruited than those who received standard printed information. Once recruited to a trial, people given multimedia or printed information were similarly likely to remain in the trial. People's views on multimedia and printed information were also similar, but this finding could have been affected by small numbers of people returning questionnaires. Our study provides evidence that multimedia information can be used in trials with children and young people and that it increases the number of people who agree to take part, but further work is needed.

Keeping patient and public partnership at the heart of medical technology development during Covid-19: examples of adaptive practice.

NIHR (National Institute for Health Research) Devices for Dignity MedTech Cooperative (D4D) and NIHR Children and Young People MedTech Cooperative (CYPMedTech) have established track records in keeping patient and public involvement (PPI) at the core of medical technology development, evaluation and implementation. The 2020 global COVID-19 pandemic presented significant challenges to maintaining this crucial focus. In this paper we describe prior successful methodologies and share examples of the adaptations made in order to continue to engage with patients and the public throughout the pandemic and beyond. We reflect on learning gained from these experiences, and new areas of scope and focus relating to broadening the reach of engagement and representation, along with associated resource requirements and impact metrics.

Parents' experiences and perceptions of the acceptability of a whole-hospital, pro-active electronic pediatric early warning system (the DETECT study): A qualitative interview study.

Background: Failure to recognize and respond to clinical deterioration in a timely and effective manner is an urgent safety concern, driving the need for early identification systems to be embedded in the care of children in hospital. Pediatric early warning systems (PEWS) or PEW scores alert health professionals (HPs) to signs of deterioration, trigger a review and escalate care as needed. PEW scoring allows HPs to record a child's vital signs and other key data including parent concern. Aim: This study aimed to explore the experiences and perceptions of parents about the acceptability of a newly implemented electronic surveillance system (the DETECT surveillance system), and factors that influenced acceptability and their awareness around signs of clinical deterioration and raising concern. Methods: Descriptive, qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken with parents of children who had experienced a critical deterioration event (CDE) (n = 19) and parents of those who had not experienced a CDE (non-CDE parents) (n = 17). Data were collected between February 2020 and February 2021. Results: Qualitative data were analyzed using generic thematic analysis. Analysis revealed an overarching theme of trust as a key factor that underpinned all aspects of children's vital signs being recorded and monitored. The main themes reflect three domains of parents' trust: trust in themselves, trust in the HPs, and trust in the technology. Conclusion: Parents' experiences and perceptions of the acceptability of a whole-hospital, pro-active electronic pediatric early warning system (The DETECT system) were positive; they found it acceptable and welcomed the use of new technology to support the care of their child.

Biomarker-guided duration of Antibiotic Treatment in Children Hospitalised with confirmed or suspected bacterial infection (BATCH): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Procalcitonin (PCT) is a biomarker more specific for bacterial infection and responds quicker than other commonly used biomarkers such as C reactive protein, but is not routinely used in the National Health Service (NHS). Studies mainly in adults show that using PCT to guide clinicians may reduce antibiotic use, reduce hospital stay, with no associated adverse effects such as increased rates of hospital re-admission, incomplete treatment of infections, relapse or death. A review conducted for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends further research on PCT testing to guide antibiotic use in children. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Biomarker-guided duration of Antibiotic Treatment in Children Hospitalised with confirmed or suspected bacterial infection is a multi-centre, prospective, two-arm, individually Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) with a 28-day follow-up and internal pilot. The intervention is a PCT-guided algorithm used in conjunction with best practice. The control arm is best practice alone. We plan to recruit 1942 children, aged between 72 hours and up to 18 years old, who are admitted to the hospital and being treated with intravenous antibiotics for suspected or confirmed bacterial infection. Coprimary outcomes are duration of antibiotic use and a composite safety measure. Secondary outcomes include time to switch from broad to narrow spectrum antibiotics, time to discharge, adverse drug reactions, health utility and cost-effectiveness. We will also perform a qualitative process evaluation. Recruitment commenced in June 2018 and paused briefly between March and May 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial protocol was approved by the HRA and NHS REC (North West Liverpool East REC reference 18/NW/0100). We will publish the results in international peer-reviewed journals and present at scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11369832.

Offer of a bandage versus rigid immobilisation in 4- to 15-year-olds with distal radius torus fractures: the FORCE equivalence RCT.

BACKGROUND: Torus (buckle) fractures of the wrist are the most common fractures in children involving the distal radius and/or ulna. It is unclear if children require rigid immobilisation and follow-up or would recover equally as well by being discharged without any immobilisation or a bandage. Given the large number of these injuries, identifying the optimal treatment strategy could have important effects on the child, the number of days of school absence and NHS costs. OBJECTIVES: To establish whether or not treating children with a distal radius torus fracture with the offer of a soft bandage and immediate discharge (i.e. offer of a bandage) provides the same recovery, in terms of pain, function, complications, acceptability, school absence and resource use, as treatment with rigid immobilisation and follow-up as per usual practice (i.e. rigid immobilisation). DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled equivalence trial. SETTING: Twenty-three UK emergency departments. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 965 children (aged 4-15 years) with a distal radius torus fracture were randomised from January 2019 to July 2020 using a secure, centralised, online-encrypted randomisation service. Exclusion criteria included presentation > 36 hours after injury, multiple injuries and an inability to complete follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: A bandage was offered to 489 participants and applied to 458, and rigid immobilisation was carried out in 476 participants. Participants and clinicians were not blinded to the treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The pain at 3 days post randomisation was measured using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes were the patient-reported outcomes measurement system upper extremity limb score for children, health-related quality of life, complications, school absence, analgesia use and resource use collected up to 6 weeks post randomisation. RESULTS: A total of 94% of participants provided primary outcome data. At 3 days, the primary outcome of pain was equivalent in both groups. With reference to the prespecified equivalence margin of 1.0, the adjusted difference in the intention-to-treat population was -0.10 (95% confidence interval -0.37 to 0.17) and the per-protocol population was -0.06 (95% confidence interval -0.34 to 0.21). There was equivalence of pain in both age subgroups (i.e. 4-7 years and 8-15 years). There was no difference in the rate of complications, with five complications (1.0%) in the offer of a bandage group and three complications (0.6%) in the rigid immobilisation group. There were no differences between treatment groups in functional recovery, quality of life or school absence at any point during the follow-up. Analgesia use was marginally higher at day 1 in the offer of a bandage group than it was in the rigid immobilisation group (83% vs. 78% of participants), but there was no difference at other time points. The offer of a bandage significantly reduced the cost of treatment and had a high probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. LIMITATIONS: Families had a strong pre-existing preference for the rigid immobilisation treatment. Given this, and the inability to blind families to the treatment allocation, observer bias was a concern. However, there was clear evidence of equivalence. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings support the offer of a bandage in children with a distal radius torus fracture. FUTURE WORK: A clinical decision tool to determine which children require radiography is an important next step to prevent overtreatment of minor wrist fractures. There is also a need to rationalise interventions for other common childhood injuries (e.g. 'toddler's fractures' of the tibia). TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN13955395 and UKCRN Portfolio 39678. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND: Torus fractures (also called buckle fractures) of the wrist are the most common type of broken bone in children, affecting 60,000 children in the UK per year. They are the mildest form of broken bone, in which the bone crushes (or buckles). Despite these fractures being so common, there is no 'standard treatment'. The traditional treatment is to use a plaster cast and arrange outpatient follow-up. Recent medical research has suggested that wearing a bandage, or even having no treatment, might result in similar healing. In this study, we looked into whether or not a bandage (which was optional to wear) and no further follow-up resulted in the same recovery as a hard splint and usual follow-up. A total of 965 children aged 4­15 years from 23 emergency departments in the UK took part in the study. Children were evenly divided between the bandage and hard splint groups in a process called randomisation. Prior to the study, families told us that managing pain after injury was the most important issue to them. We asked children and their families to tell us about pain, recovery using the arm, quality of life, complications encountered and school absences. We also looked at the financial costs to families and the NHS. WHAT DID THE TRIAL FIND?: The two treatments resulted in the same outcomes. The majority of those offered a bandage chose to wear it immediately. There was no difference at all in the levels of pain between those treated with a hard splint and usual outpatient follow-up and those offered a bandage and discharge (i.e. no further follow up) from hospital the same day. Similarly, there was no difference in the recovery using the arm, quality of life, complications encountered or school absences. There was a very slight increase in pain killer use in the bandage group at day 1, but not at any other time point. Overall, the cost of the offer of a bandage was slightly lower for families and the NHS. In conclusion, the findings of this study support offering a bandage to be used at the discretion of families to treat children with a torus fracture of the wrist.

Clinical utility and acceptability of a whole-hospital, pro-active electronic paediatric early warning system (the DETECT study): A prospective e-survey of parents and health professionals.

BACKGROUND: Paediatric early warning systems (PEWS) are a means of tracking physiological state and alerting healthcare professionals about signs of deterioration, triggering a clinical review and/or escalation of care of children. A proactive end-to-end deterioration solution (the DETECT surveillance system) with an embedded e-PEWS that included sepsis screening was introduced across a tertiary children's hospital. One component of the implementation programme was a sub-study to determine an understanding of the DETECT e-PEWS in terms of its clinical utility and its acceptability. AIM: This study aimed to examine how parents and health professionals view and engage with the DETECT e-PEWS apps, with a particular focus on its clinical utility and its acceptability. METHOD: A prospective, closed (tick box or sliding scale) and open (text based) question, e-survey of parents (n = 137) and health professionals (n = 151) with experience of DETECT e-PEWS. Data were collected between February 2020 and February 2021. RESULTS: Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics and qualitative data with generic thematic analysis. Overall, both clinical utility and acceptability (across seven constructs) were high across both stakeholder groups although some challenges to utility (e.g., sensitivity of triggers within specific patient populations) and acceptability (e.g., burden related to having to carry extra technology) were identified. CONCLUSION: Despite the multifaceted nature of the intervention and the complexity of implementation across a hospital, the system demonstrated clinical utility and acceptability across two key groups of stakeholders: parents and health professionals.

Studying the Long-term Impact of COVID-19 in Kids (SLICK). Healthcare use and costs in children and young people following community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection: protocol for an observational study using linked primary and secondary routinely collected healthcare data from England, Scotland and Wales.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 infection rarely causes hospitalisation in children and young people (CYP), but mild or asymptomatic infections are common. Persistent symptoms following infection have been reported in CYP but subsequent healthcare use is unclear. We aim to describe healthcare use in CYP following community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection and identify those at risk of ongoing healthcare needs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use anonymised individual-level, population-scale national data linking demographics, comorbidities, primary and secondary care use and mortality between 1 January 2019 and 1 May 2022. SARS-CoV-2 test data will be linked from 1 January 2020 to 1 May 2022. Analyses will use Trusted Research Environments: OpenSAFELY in England, Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank in Wales and Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 in Scotland (EAVE-II). CYP aged ≥4 and <18 years who underwent SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) testing between 1 January 2020 and 1 May 2021 and those untested CYP will be examined.The primary outcome measure is cumulative healthcare cost over 12 months following SARS-CoV-2 testing, stratified into primary or secondary care, and physical or mental healthcare. We will estimate the burden of healthcare use attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infections in the 12 months after testing using a matched cohort study of RT-PCR positive, negative or untested CYP matched on testing date, with adjustment for confounders. We will identify factors associated with higher healthcare needs in the 12 months following SARS-CoV-2 infection using an unmatched cohort of RT-PCR positive CYP. Multivariable logistic regression and machine learning approaches will identify risk factors for high healthcare use and characterise patterns of healthcare use post infection. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the South-Central Oxford C Health Research Authority Ethics Committee (13/SC/0149). Findings will be preprinted and published in peer-reviewed journals. Analysis code and code lists will be available through public GitHub repositories and OpenCodelists with meta-data via HDR-UK Innovation Gateway.

Standardised data on initiatives-STARDIT: Beta version.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is currently no standardised way to share information across disciplines about initiatives, including fields such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, media and international development. All problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond effectively. Current reporting methods also lack information about the ways in which different people and organisations are involved in initiatives, making it difficult to collate and appraise data about the most effective ways to involve different people. The objective of STARDIT (Standardised Data on Initiatives) is to address current limitations and inconsistencies in sharing data about initiatives. The STARDIT system features standardised data reporting about initiatives, including who has been involved, what tasks they did, and any impacts observed. STARDIT was created to help everyone in the world find and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as 'initiatives'. STARDIT enables multiple categories of data to be reported in a standardised way across disciplines, facilitating appraisal of initiatives and aiding synthesis of evidence for the most effective ways for people to be involved in initiatives. This article outlines progress to date on STARDIT; current usage; information about submitting reports; planned next steps and how anyone can become involved. METHOD: STARDIT development is guided by participatory action research paradigms, and has been co-created with people from multiple disciplines and countries. Co-authors include cancer patients, people affected by rare diseases, health researchers, environmental researchers, economists, librarians and academic publishers. The co-authors also worked with Indigenous peoples from multiple countries and in partnership with an organisation working with Indigenous Australians. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Over 100 people from multiple disciplines and countries have been involved in co-designing STARDIT since 2019. STARDIT is the first open access web-based data-sharing system which standardises the way that information about initiatives is reported across diverse fields and disciplines, including information about which tasks were done by which stakeholders. STARDIT is designed to work with existing data standards. STARDIT data will be released into the public domain (CC0) and integrated into Wikidata; it works across multiple languages and is both human and machine readable. Reports can be updated throughout the lifetime of an initiative, from planning to evaluation, allowing anyone to be involved in reporting impacts and outcomes. STARDIT is the first system that enables sharing of standardised data about initiatives across disciplines. A working Beta version was publicly released in February 2021 (ScienceforAll.World/STARDIT). Subsequently, STARDIT reports have been created for peer-reviewed research in multiple journals and multiple research projects, demonstrating the usability. In addition, organisations including Cochrane and Australian Genomics have created prospective reports outlining planned initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: STARDIT can help create high-quality standardised information on initiatives trying to solve complex multidisciplinary global problems.

All major problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics, require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond effectively. Such problems require evidence-informed collaborative methods, multidisciplinary research and interventions in which the people who are affected are involved in every stage. However, there is currently no standardised way to share information about initiatives and problem-solving across and between fields such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, education, media and international development. A multi-disciplinary international team of over 100 citizens, experts and data-users has been involved in co-creating STARDIT to help everyone in the world share, find and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as 'initiatives'. STARDIT is an open access data-sharing system to standardise the way that information about initiatives is reported, including information about which tasks were done by different people. Reports can be updated at all stages, from planning to evaluation, and can report impacts in many languages, using Wikidata. STARDIT is free to use, and data can be submitted by anyone. Report authors can be verified to improve trust and transparency, and data checked for quality. STARDIT can help create high-quality standardised information on initiatives trying to solve complex multidisciplinary global problems. Among its main benefits, STARDIT offers those carrying out research and interventions access to standardised information which enables well-founded comparisons of the effectiveness of different methods. This article outlines progress to date; current usage; information about submitting reports; planned next steps and how anyone can become involved.